Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Glass

dcurt.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 180 posts

Re: Glass

#121

Post by potatolicious »

canthonytucci wrote: post #115
nahname wrote: post #32

After trying google glass out last week, it still has a long way to go. Many tech people lined up to try it out. All of us failed to do anything useful with it. We had to be told how to activate it. We had to be told what we could do with it. What phrases it keys off of ('Okay glass'). These were all highly technical people and we couldn't figure it out on our own. Contrast that with a few christmas' ago when I left…

>All of us failed to do anything useful with it. We had to be told how to activate it. We had to be told what we could do with it. If I'm going to wear something on my head like a nutcase, I would hope that it has been designed for _usability_ not _Discoverability_. Making everything idiot-proof or at least "didn't bother to read the manual proof" leaves us with only devices suited for idiots and people too lazy to r…

> "leaves us with only devices suited for idiots and people too lazy to read the manual."

Devices "suited for idiots and people too lazy to read the manual" have, in the past decade, driven massive growths in computing, made it more accessible to more people, changed the landscape of the entire world, and even fueled a few revolutions.

But by all means, when people need to read a book just to use a device, we'll consider it a badge of honor instead of a failure of design.

Re: Glass

#122

Post by mikeg8 »

SimpleStatement wrote: post #79

Dustin Curtis does not even own Glass, he is using a 'friends' item. He just wants readership/attention/validation, hence the opinionated and slightly snarky blog post.

This comment adds zero value to any meaningful discussion. aJust because he doesn't own it himself doesn't mean he is incapable of a thoughtful analysis of his experience with the product. Keep your jealousy to yourself.

Re: Glass

#123

Post by jfoster »

falcolas wrote: post #27
pixie_ wrote: post #8

I spent an hour tonight debating someone on how the Oculus Rift is revolutionary while Glass is not. The first hand reviews of the Rift vs Glass are night and day. One is the future the other is meh.

At the potential of starting a flame war, I would categorize the Oculus Rift as the meh, and the glass is the future. I was able to use a head mounted (and tracking) 3d display with a computer back when ROTT was popular (circa 1994). It's a novelty at best, and a headache inducing nightmare at worst. I didn't see the magic then, and I certainly don't see the magic now. A seamless hud, on the other hand, has the poten…

I haven't tried Glass, but I tried Oculus Rift a few weeks ago and it made me want them both more.

They're very different devices. The Rift immerses you in 3D worlds. Every way you tilt your head immediately changes your viewpoint. My perception of Glass is that it tries to overlay information on top of reality and add more senses to humans. They are similar means to completely different ends.

Re: Glass

#124

Post by jwr »

ry0ohki wrote: post #106
zacharycohn wrote: post #49

As someone who just got their Glass last night, I have a FEW conflicting points, although a lot of it is spot on. -I don't think the screen is not bright enough, and I haven't had the issue where you have to look at something dark to see it. -I also disagree about "dangerous while driving." In fact, I would argue quite the opposite. It's SO much safer than looking at your phone for directions. The fact that any infor…

I just got my invite to order and his comment about it being dangerous while driving is a non-starter...that's the main reason I'd find this useful (while cycling)

For cycling and other sports activities the Recon Jet glasses (http://jet.reconinstruments.com) might be a much better fit. I'm watching them closely, hoping to order once they become available.

Judging from the preliminary specs and information, it's a much nicer product: full developer docs available, an open system where you can deploy any apps you like, a very nice hardware platform and to top it all off, a much nicer price than Google Glass.

I also find the explicit design much more appealing — they don't try to hide the fact that there is a display on your face.

Re: Glass

#125

Post by msabalau »

kmasters wrote: post #107
DominikR wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Google has never, not once, in its history, had a successful launch of a hardware product" Sure, Apple brought us the iPad Mini because the Nexus 7 failed so hard. The Nexus 4 and 10 are also known as big failures that customers hate.

You are correct, No Nexus device from the time it was released to today has sold as much as the iPad or iPhone sells in one day. Google has never had a successful launch of a hardware product, not even once.

So, you joined this community nine days ago and thought a great way to begin would be with a ridiculous and absurd lie about Nexus sales?

Regardless, it's hardly clear why a community of people intent on founding new businesses would consider a history of successful product launches all that important.

Re: Glass

#126

Post by untog »

ry0ohki wrote: post #106
zacharycohn wrote: post #49

As someone who just got their Glass last night, I have a FEW conflicting points, although a lot of it is spot on. -I don't think the screen is not bright enough, and I haven't had the issue where you have to look at something dark to see it. -I also disagree about "dangerous while driving." In fact, I would argue quite the opposite. It's SO much safer than looking at your phone for directions. The fact that any infor…

I just got my invite to order and his comment about it being dangerous while driving is a non-starter...that's the main reason I'd find this useful (while cycling)

I'd be more concerned about trashing $1500-worth of hardware if I fall off my bike.

Re: Glass

#127

Post by ry0ohki »

untog wrote: post #126
ry0ohki wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just got my invite to order and his comment about it being dangerous while driving is a non-starter...that's the main reason I'd find this useful (while cycling)

I'd be more concerned about trashing $1500-worth of hardware if I fall off my bike.

I've literally never fallen off of my road bike in 20 years of cycling, and if i get hit by a car or something I have bigger problems...

Re: Glass

#128

Post by gbog »

coldtea wrote: post #83
waterlesscloud wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing is that Google's recent high profile AI hires like Hinton and Kurzweil have said they'll be working on NLP systems, which leads to some interesting possibilities along the lines of what you're saying.

Yes, with such high profile such as Kurzweil, we might even get the singularity emerge in Google Glass first. /s

I'd be following Taleb here and would be very skeptic about the positive or negative outcome from the hiring of a Kurzweil at Google.

To expand: Big companies may have the need for very talented particulars, like Peter Norvig, who can drive innovation over big teams and have a very precise mind, and all the humility required. But in the case of Kurzweil, it looks more like he is invited to play the clown and amuse the assistance, than to lead anything concrete.

Re: Glass

#129

Post by nmcfarl »

ry0ohki wrote: post #127
untog wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be more concerned about trashing $1500-worth of hardware if I fall off my bike.

I've literally never fallen off of my road bike in 20 years of cycling, and if i get hit by a car or something I have bigger problems...

I do it about once every 2-3 years. Just last month I misjudged a curb cut while on a bike trail after dark. Before that a railroad crossing, on a angle, grabbed my tire. For me this is not all that rare...

Re: Glass

#130

Post by nicholassmith »

djim wrote: post #99
nicholassmith wrote: post #88

If the issues with having to look at dark areas are common and persistent in the consumer release, it'll kill mainstream adoption. A geek might dislike having to do it, but they'll do it, but explaining to most people "oh sure, you just look at a shadow and hey presto" isn't going to convince them. I'm cautiously optimistic about the product, I just hope that Google can nail these issues before they release it, other…

there is a sunglasses extension. put that on and the issue he described disappears. you can see the screen in direct sunlight. this is the problem with someone giving such a detailed review when they don't fully understand the product features (the sunglasses extension is a feature).

So there's an additional widget that's required for you to use it in direct sunlight, so you need to have the sunglasses extension for it to work correctly. I understand there's a technical reason for this, but that's not a solution that's going to work for the majority consumer.
Post reply on HN